I realize that men can be sexually assaulted too, but I will be referring to women throughout.

Negative stereotypes surrounding women who have been sexually assaulted are rampant in society and in the police force. Ie. she was asking for it, she was drunk and wanted it, she knew what she was doing, she said no but really meant yes. I think the worst I've heard and this is from the woman herself, is that because she begged her attacker to use a condom that was consent and she had no case against him.

I'm not sure how many posters have read or seen the Many Trials of One Jane Doe, but the crap that the police/criminal justice system put her through still goes on today. And in her words her's was a "good girl rape" - since she was white middle class and respectable and was raped in her own house by a stranger - she got far better treatment than many other women who have been sexually assaulted.

Sexual assault is hard to prove, especially in date rape situations, because it often comes down to he said/she said and the burden of proof (beyond a shadow of a doubt) is hard to meet. If the attacker does wear a condom, there is no DNA evidence. If the woman showers first, which is a natural reaction, much of the evidence is lost. A judge I know told me that there are times that he is so sure that the guy is guilty, he can feel it, but the evidence isn't there, so he has to let him go. Like Jeff House said in the other thread, we don't want to lock up the wrong guy, we need to be sure.
There are laws that are supposed to protect the women, ie. you can't bring up her past sexual experiences. However, the woman is still going to be put on the stand and cross examined and have to relive the horror in public.

Is it surprising that many women choose not to report the assaults?

In one of my classes at law school, the professor (a very respected expert in tort law, but a male who has likely never been sexually assaulted) strongly advocated that instead of using the criminal system, it would be better to sue the attacker directly in a civil case.
The benefits being that the woman is directly involved in the case, has her own lawyer, does not have to deal with the police and the burden of proof is easier to meet than in criminal cases - "balance of probabilities" (we're told not to put a number on it, but I've always thought of it as 50/50)

The disadvantages that I can think of here is that the guy will not be in jail, and in addition to all the other rape myths out there, we'll have the added one that the woman is doing this for the money award if she wins. After all, if she was really assaulted, why wouldn't she report it to the police like any other crime. Someone else in my class said that she thought this was kind of like buying a rape. But I don't know if that holds weight, since by that logic people can also buy a shot at beating someone up or breaking into a house or any other thing we are able sue someone for...

So much of what I know about how the police deal with rape/sexual assualt is from Jane Doe's book, and in it she argues against something that many people constantly misinterpret, which is the advice that women are constantly told: "Report the rape to the police". Jane does not say to not report, but she advocates to also tell women that by reporting to the police there will be further layers of violation and intrusion into her life, background, friends, ex-lovers, etc. She also feels women should know the extremely low rates of accused rapists being charged and convicted of rape/sexual assualt.

There are women who are "more valued" in society; it's "worse" when they are raped, and likewise there are women who are "less valued" and it's "bad, but not the worst thing" when they are raped. All those quotes are to separate myself from those despicable attitudes, but they are out there, among regular people and among the police. We can delineate along race, age, profession, marital status and class lines who is "more" and "less" valued.

I have worked with women who have been victims of sexual assualt and many opt not to go through with the court process simply because of the added trauma - the police often do not even believe them, still, in 2006! (Obviously, it is up to the Crown to lay charges but if a woman does not want to participate, it can be tough to make a case).

In NS, we have specially trained nurses who do sexual assault counselling and treatment - at the time of the assault (if it is reported) - but the court process cn be a very brutal one!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by JaneyCanuck:
I think rape is extremely under reported - esp on univ campuses and at parties anywhere where drinking has occured. I worry about the trend for young teens to aspire to look and dress like the Britany's, Paris' and Shakiras of the world!! (sigh!)

---

but with respect to the accepted notions on this board, has there been any rape research in which the rapists were interviewed and studied, rather than their victims? I'd be interested in reading it, as I've thus far been skeptical of some of the ideas on these threads.

i definately think that rape, like all assaults, should be criminally dealt with.

more public awareness for women on what to do after an attack[save dna evidence, learn to get really angry, call several friends immediately to come and support,...?]

there must be more that can be done to assist women and to educate them that reporting is the right thing to do.
there is surely much more that could be done by law enforcement. maybe interviews and evidence taking in her home in the presense of her supportive friends?

i have several friends who did not tell a soul about vicious rapes and assaults until years later.
these were all women who showed well--'good' girls who didn't even drink from upper middleclass homes--lily white, good marks, etc

they couldn't bear to go through the anxiety and felt ashamed instead of mad.

their attackers were confident that these women wouldn't report them and told them so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Summer:
In one of my classes at law school, the professor (a very respected expert in tort law, but a male who has likely never been sexually assaulted) strongly advocated that instead of using the criminal system, it would be better to sue the attacker directly in a civil case.
The benefits being that the woman is directly involved in the case, has her own lawyer, does not have to deal with the police and the burden of proof is easier to meet than in criminal cases - "balance of probabilities" (we're told not to put a number on it, but I've always thought of it as 50/50)

The disadvantages that I can think of here is that the guy will not be in jail, and in addition to all the other rape myths out there, we'll have the added one that the woman is doing this for the money award if she wins. After all, if she was really assaulted, why wouldn't she report it to the police like any other crime. Someone else in my class said that she thought this was kind of like buying a rape. But I don't know if that holds weight, since by that logic people can also buy a shot at beating someone up or breaking into a house or any other thing we are able sue someone for...

So am curious to know what other people think or maybe even have had experiences along these lines. I have no idea what I would do. I think there'd be a huge part of me who would want to see the guy thrown in jail but I don't know if there would be a bigger part that just wanted to forget about it and move on.

---

The civil route may be a good option whether or not the attacker is found guilty criminally.

In the OJ case, he was found not guilty of murder criminally but was successfully sued civilly for wrongful death (and largely ruined financially as a result). But, even if OJ had been found guilty criminally, the victims' families could still have sued OJ civilly for damages. Similar to OJ's murder/wrongful death cases, the civil route would be available to a sexual assault victim.

The civil route will largely have little effect, however, if the attacker happens to be indigent (you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip) and will only have much effect if the attacker has substantial assets at risk of forfeiture. On the other hand, a civil victory probably would represent some degree of a moral victory, even if the attacker had little or no assets. But, in those cases, the victim would have to fund the suit out of the victim's own pockets.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
She also feels women should know the extremely low rates of accused rapists being charged and convicted of rape/sexual assualt.

---

quote:

---

Of the 6% of sexual assaults that are reported, only 40% result in charges being laid. Of those cases where charges are laid, two-thirds result in conviction.

---

Rape Myths dispelled

quote:

---

In 2004, only 8 percent of Canadians who indicated having been sexually assaulted in the
past 12 months reported the incident to police, compared to 39 percent of those who were physically assaulted and 46 percent of those who were victims of robbery.
Of the 820 sexual assaults reported to police in Nova Scotia in 2004, charges were laid
in 250 cases (31 percent)

---

quote:

---

Prosecuting is not easy, nor does it ensure a conviction. Out of the 28% of rapes that are reported to the police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.
Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 5% or one in twenty rapists will ever spend a day in jail

---

quote:

---

In one of my classes at law school, the professor (strongly advocated that instead of using the criminal system, it would be better to sue the attacker directly in a civil case.

...The disadvantages that I can think of here is that the guy will not be in jail, and in addition to all the other rape myths out there, we'll have the added one that the woman is doing this for the money award if she wins.

---

Well, there are two overwhelming disadvantages:

1. The victim will not have $20,000 to hire counsel to engage in a civil case, and

2. The perpetrator will not have any momey to give in damages, so the whole thing will be a waste of time.